Analytical and Experimental Study of the Start of the Chip Removal in Rotational Turning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper mainly discusses the chip formation process in the process of rotary cutting. There's not much new in this study, it's just a geometric model. The author would need considerable revision before being considered for acceptance.
1. Most of the information provided in the abstract is irrelevant to the research topic. Authors should describe the importance of the chip formation process and the innovation of their own research work.
2. The author did not compare the experimental results with the real prediction results, which made it impossible to support the accuracy of his proposed model.
3. The author describes the chip formation process, but there is no photo related to the chip, the full text is only some two-dimensional graph, it is difficult to determine the accuracy of the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe following is the list of detailed comments with respect to the paper:
1. Lines 119 to 154 describe that the parameters in Figure 1 are too many, and it is too long to put them in the text, so it is better to create a table to express them, which will be clearer.
2. The first line of the table in Table1 is not underlined, and underlining is added in Table2, so it is recommended that the format be standardized.
3. Units in the text should be bracketed, e.g., 0.4 mm/rev in Section IV, line 294, should be 0.4 (mm/rev) or 0.4 (mm.rev-1).
4. Units in figures should also be bracketed, e.g., “ap=0.1mm” in figures 7, 8, and 9 should be written as “ap=0.1(mm)”.
5. It is better to give the detail parameters about tool, the workpiece and machine device. It is best to provide experimental images, too.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe analytical and experimental study of the start of the chip removal in rotational turning was accomplished. The research methods are reasonable, and the research workload is relatively full. Before publication, the minor revision is needed. My detailed comments are shown as follows.
1. Line 119-125, these symbols are suggested in a list format for easy reading.
2. The structure of “materials and methods” should be improved. The logic of this part is not clear at this stage.
3. The second analysis is carried out to examine the effect of the feed and depth of cut. The effect of the feed and depth of cut on What?
4. The relationship of analytical and experimental results should be analyzed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript's author, “Analytical and Experimental Study of the Start of the Chip Removal in Rotational Turning”, presented a theoretical and experimental investigation methodology of rotational turning. The authors presented a detailed description of the theoretical background and experimental setup. The topic of the manuscript is relevant to scientific and manufacturing communities.
However, some aspects can be improved:
1. Adding a photo of the experimental set-up with graphic information on key set-up units and movements of the cutting tool and workpiece is recommended.
2. Also, please add more detailed information about cutting tool geometry (not only inclination angle) but other geometric parameters such as rake and clearance angles, cutting edge radius (if applicable), and cutting edge length. It is desired that authors also add the photo of the actual cutting tool with a specification of geometry parameters
3. Though the authors described the design of the experiment in Table 1, it is unclear what type of DOE the authors chose. It looks confusing that one factor is varied on 7 levels while the second is varied on 3 levels. There is doubt that such DOE presents a relevant relationship between factors and experiment outcomes. Please specify the DOE plan.
4. How do authors provide replication of experimental trials?
5. Is the first defined interval of chip formation the same as which is titled “run in”?
6. It is not clear why, in theoretical modelling, authors report the cross-section thickness of the chip in the “run-in” stage while describing the experimental finding describes the chip thickness in the “third defined interval”. Please add the discussion section of the actual comparison of theoretical and experimental results. Maybe some combined charts of theoretical and experimental results will present the visual support of this analysis.
7. Figures 10 and 11 have a misleading title. Though the cutting force is presented on the charts authors write about chip form. It is not clear from the charts what form the chip has.
8. What do dotted lines present in Figure 11?
9. Please reconsider the conclusion. Currently, they are written in the abstract style, reporting about the process but not the research results. Please focus on the description of the gained results and outcomes rather than on retelling the process of research in the conclusion section.
10. In conclusion, the authors mention (Line 376) that the present study somehow deeper an understanding of the way to improve surface quality, though the analysis of the surface quality was not reported in the manuscript. Please add valid experimental results which lead to such a conclusion.
11. Probably author's statement (Line 375 ) about process parameters optimization is also too optimistic. The authors did not present any results of optimization of the cutting parameters during rotational turning in the manuscript. In other words, the reviewer did not notice any clear description of the optimization technique for cutting parameters during rotational turning. Please add the necessary results or reconsider the conclusions.
12. More than 50 % of all references in the manuscript are outdated. Please add the analysis from 10 to 15 references not older then 5 years.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all my concerns. I consider the manuscript acceptable for publication.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors made sufficent coorections to the manuscript text. It is recomended to accept the manuscript in the present form.
